↓ Skip to main content

Strength Training as a Countermeasure to Aging Muscle and Chronic Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
16 X users
patent
7 patents
facebook
3 Facebook pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
129 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
469 Mendeley
Title
Strength Training as a Countermeasure to Aging Muscle and Chronic Disease
Published in
Sports Medicine, October 2012
DOI 10.2165/11585920-000000000-00000
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ben F. Hurley, Erik D. Hanson, Andrew K. Sheaff

Abstract

Strength training (ST) has long been considered a promising intervention for reversing the loss of muscle function and the deterioration of muscle structure associated with advanced age but, until recently, the evidence was insufficient to support its role in the prevention or treatment of disease. In recent decades, there has been a long list of quality reviews examining the effects of ST on functional abilities and a few on risk factors for specific diseases, but none have provided a comprehensive assessment of ST as an intervention for a broad range of diseases. This review provides an overview of research addressing the effectiveness of ST as an intervention for the prevention or treatment of the adverse consequences of (i) aging muscle; (ii) the metabolic syndrome (MetS) and its components, i.e. insulin resistance, abdominal obesity, hyperlipidaemia and hypertension; (iii) fibromyalgia; (iv) rheumatoid arthritis; and (v) Alzheimer's disease. Collectively, these studies indicate that ST may serve as an effective countermeasure to some of the adverse consequences of the MetS, fibromyalgia and rheumatoid arthritis. Evidence in support of the hypothesis that ST reduces insulin resistance or improves insulin action comes both from indirect biomarkers, such as glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), and insulin responses to oral glucose tolerance tests, as well as from more direct procedures such as hyperglycaemic and hyperinsulinaemic-euglycaemic clamp techniques. The evidence for the use of ST as a countermeasure of abdominal obesity is less convincing. Although some reports show statistically significant reductions in visceral fat, it is unclear if the magnitude of these changes are physiologically meaningful and if they are independent of dietary influences. The efficacy of ST as an intervention for reducing dyslipidaemia is at best inconsistent, particularly when compared with other pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, such as aerobic exercise training. However, there is more consistent evidence for the effectiveness of ST in reducing triglyceride levels. This finding could have clinical significance, given that elevated triglyceride is one of the five criterion measures for the diagnosis of the MetS. Small to moderate reductions in resting and exercise blood pressure have been reported with some indication that this effect may be genotype dependent. ST improves or reverses some of the adverse effects of fibromyalgia and rheumatoid arthritis, particularly pain, inflammation, muscle weakness and fatigue. Investigations are needed to determine how these effects compare with those elicited from aerobic exercise training and/or standard treatments. There is no evidence that ST can reverse any of the major biological or behavioural outcomes of Alzheimer's disease, but there is evidence that the prevalence of this disease is inversely associated with muscle mass and strength. Some indicators of cognitive function may also improve with ST. Thus, ST is an effective countermeasure for some of the adverse effects experienced by patients of many chronic diseases, as discussed in this review.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 469 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 4 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Chile 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Denmark 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 448 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 72 15%
Student > Bachelor 66 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 10%
Researcher 30 6%
Student > Postgraduate 26 6%
Other 109 23%
Unknown 120 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 94 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 92 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 5%
Other 64 14%
Unknown 135 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 June 2023.
All research outputs
#1,011,648
of 25,658,139 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#885
of 2,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,820
of 193,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#114
of 833 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,658,139 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,893 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 57.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 193,139 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 833 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.